> Microwires Can Replace The DVD-ROM [...] > Anyway, it's not that easy. Researchers say that the greatest difficulty will be with the reading of information.
If reading the information was impossible, this could be a great alternative to the DVD-WOM
> Virtua Fighter has improved quite a bit, but the learning curve is so high > that its pretty hard for newcomers to play.
Speaking of which, what good 3D figting game does not have a steep learning curve and can appeal to people that do not want to (or just cannot) memorize a heap of long combos?
I watched quite a few episodes (the Space channel used to show ST reruns almost constantly) and while there might have been individual episodes that I enjoyed (none springs to mind) I never liked any of the series as a whole.
The main reason was that the audience was told what to think and what to feel. There were usually the "good" choices vs. the "bad" choices, the morality was shoved down the audience's throats, everybody was so pompous (Voyager was the worst in that respect. Janeway's motivational speeches are a crime against intelliget life anywhere), everything was so stereotyped.
There was no room for independent thought on the part of the viewer.
That, and the fact that every problem can be solved by reconfiguring the sensor array.
If there was a science fiction show worth saving, it would be Farscape.
> If persons with authority start telling people what to do on the grounds > that the law says they can, and then it turns out that they don't know what > they are talking about, indeed for all appearances might just be making it > up, then there are no limits to what citizens can and will be forced to do. > If that's not a grave threat to civil rights, I don't know what is. It no > longer matters what the law does and does not allow, the law doesn't make any > difference any more if anyone with a badge can claim, "It's the law" and then > without any further explanation demand anything they want.
The problem is that people in the position of authority have power, and power corrupts.
If there was a law stating that every complaint of abuse of authority will be thoroughly investigated by an independent body and, if found to be justified, the culprits shall be sodomized with jackhammers, then I will have no problem with showing IDs or trusting the authorities, because I will know that people with power would not even dream of abusing it.
However, as things stand now, policemen (and other people in a position of authority) can get away with crimes that a normal person would rot in jail for. Often they get "reprimanded" or are subject to "administrative measures" or, at worst, greatly reduced sentences because, after all, they are policemen...
WTF?
If you are given means to limit the rights and freedoms of other people (and often take their lives), you should be bloody made accountable! Any crime that also involved abuse of authority (whether as a parent, police officer, elected official, etc.) should be treated as crime against society and automatically warrant twice the maximum penalty set by law. Penalties for corruption should hurt so much as to make it not worth the risk.
Secret laws, laws that criminalize a large portion of the population, selective enforcement, etc. invariably lead to corruption and must be eliminated.
Why in the world would anyone consider a statement of facts "insightful"? What insight exactly was present?
Seriously, I believe that a prospective moderator should be made to correctly correctly identify possible moderation options before they can actually moderate submissions.
At least read the relevant FAQ entry before moderating!
On the other hand, almost every moron can vote (by virtue of their birthplace) so I guess that, in the grand scheme of things, SlashDot moderation does not really matter that much.
> But what drive's Paypal's fees (besides the usual bookkeeping/admin costs), are credit card fees. > Remember that every time a vendor accepts a credit card payment, the VENDOR, not the customer, > must pay the credit card company a fee, which generally ranges from 2-5% of the transaction. > So Paypal is acting as the vendor so that each seller doesn't have to start up his own merchant CC account. > You'll find that Paypal's fees aren't that much higher than the credit card fees alone. > But that is also why Paypal started to try to encourage buyers to use their bank accounts to fund transactions, > to avoid having to pay the CC fees.
According to PayPal, "PayPal charges Premier and Business accounts to receive payments. Personal accounts are free, but may not receive credit card payments."
Let's say you want to sell something for $300 on PayPal.
If you have a "Personal Account", you cannot accept money from accounts funded by Credit Cards at all -- so no CC fees for PayPal.
Otherwise, if you have a "Premier/Business Account", you pay $9 (comes to 3%) as fees, which will either cover the vendor CC fees, if the buyer's account is funded by a credit card or will go straight to PayPal's coffers if the buyer's money came from another source.
Either way, PayPal wins.
Oh, and if you got paid in international currency, that's another 2.5% for PayPal. Sweet.
PayPal wants you to use a bank account because that way they can access your money. That's right, in case of a "dispute", they can just withdraw any amount that wish from your account and hold it for half a year. Double sweet.
> A few books of programming that I've used, they all use the infamous i > counter name in their for loops and then, they come up and say that you have > to give variable names that make sense, and then you see again the for int i...
Using "i" for an index variable is perfectly sensible and natural for anybody with a math background (and don't forget that algorithms are math).
> I have been coding in C for a while (10 yrs or so) and tend to use short code snippets. > As a simple example, take 'if (!ptr)' instead of 'if (ptr==NULL)'. > The reason someone might use the former code snippet is because they believe it would result > in smaller machine code if the compiler does not do optimizations or is not smart enough > to optimize the particular code snippet.
No programmer believes that. In C, NULL is #define-ed to 0 and the "!" operator also compares against zero so every compiler should generate exactly the same code for both.
> IMHO the latter code snippet is clearer than the former, and I would use it in my code
Actually I prefer to write (and read) the former and I do find it clearer, mostly because it is idiomatic in C et al.
Another good reason is that the former works better in C++ because it enables you to substitute "smart" objects for plain pointers and use them in a more natureal way (especially in templates).
(Aside: most platforms that have C compilers also have deccent C++ compilers)
> if I know for sure that the compiler will optimize it and produce machine code equivalent to the former code snippet.
> People are pretty stupid, emotional and gullible and we have purchased a > lot of the media outlets to which people are exposed, so we have a good > chance of achieving this objective. > > It's all very logical and makes good business sense. Why shouldn't the free > market system be applied to the public's emotions? It's been done for centuries.
True, that's one of the problems with representative democracies.
Another one is the assumption that a person best equipped to win a popularity contest is the most suitable choice to run a country.
>> Serirously- this isn't paperclips these people are selling ITS YOUR >> PERSONAL DATA. They need to be closed, and whoever responsible needs to go >> to jail- and everyone involved in covering up the crime deserves to live in >> poverty for the rest of their fucking lives. > > Nice thought, but Dubya would pardon them.
Then he also deserves the same fate.
The president of a democratic country is not an overlord. He is chosen by the people to administer the execution of of the people's will. Once he forgets that, he needs to be slapped down. Hard.
> Anyway, as I noted in the earlier thread on this topic, I think we need to > establish the principle that *YOU* own the personal data about *YOU*, and no > one can use it or sell it without *YOUR* permission. This is actually a > logical implication of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. However, to give it > teeth, I think we also need to appeal to "Possession is nine points of the > law", and *YOU* should be able to store your own data on *YOUR* own computer. > Anyone wants to see it, they ask for your permission (or prove they deserve a > search warrant).
Hmmm...
You said: "... ChoicePoint helped disenfranchise thousands of primarily Democratic voters".
I am sorry but, according to your suggestion, this information does not belong to you so you cannot use it without a search warrant.
Yes, this remark was facetious but there is a line to be drawn between a right to privacy and the freedom of speech (or information) and it is not so simple to decide where to draw it.
> Do the demographics. You'll find that the vast majority of those deaths > are NOT in the "Bible Belt where every motherfucker owns at least one gun".
Maybe it is because, according to the grandfather post's use of the vernacular, those that "own at least one gun" have other things on their minds?
> As an aside: gawd, I hate their use of "patriot" that way, does anybody > know the etymology of the word "patriot" with respect to this legislation? > Whose idea was it to use "patriot" and why? It seems like the worst/most > transparent type of label possible for such a group of laws that seek to > strip away personal freedoms and rights to privacy.... also known as The Samuel Johnson act.
Slashdot Mirror
> Microwires Can Replace The DVD-ROM [...]
> Anyway, it's not that easy. Researchers say that the greatest difficulty will be with the reading of information.
If reading the information was impossible, this could be a great alternative to the DVD-WOM
Next stop, Hollywood.
> Why with McDonald's being sued over hot coffee and all...Sometimes I wonder if I am in a bizzaro version of America.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of suing video game companies because some mental case kid shot somebody.
> Virtua Fighter has improved quite a bit, but the learning curve is so high
> that its pretty hard for newcomers to play.
Speaking of which, what good 3D figting game does not have a steep learning curve and can appeal to people that do not want to (or just cannot) memorize a heap of long combos?
Sure, democracy is way better than some of the alternatives, but not everything should be decided by a popularity contest.
> Still there's the big problem of holding someone else accountable for another's actions.
You're not from America, are you?
Will it support SoundStorm?
(Pirst Fost?)
I watched quite a few episodes (the Space channel used to show ST reruns almost constantly) and while there might have been individual episodes that I enjoyed (none springs to mind) I never liked any of the series as a whole.
The main reason was that the audience was told what to think and what to feel.
There were usually the "good" choices vs. the "bad" choices, the morality was shoved down the audience's throats, everybody was so pompous (Voyager was the worst in that respect. Janeway's motivational speeches are a crime against intelliget life anywhere), everything was so stereotyped.
There was no room for independent thought on the part of the viewer.
That, and the fact that every problem can be solved by reconfiguring the sensor array.
If there was a science fiction show worth saving, it would be Farscape.
> If persons with authority start telling people what to do on the grounds
> that the law says they can, and then it turns out that they don't know what
> they are talking about, indeed for all appearances might just be making it
> up, then there are no limits to what citizens can and will be forced to do.
> If that's not a grave threat to civil rights, I don't know what is. It no
> longer matters what the law does and does not allow, the law doesn't make any
> difference any more if anyone with a badge can claim, "It's the law" and then
> without any further explanation demand anything they want.
The problem is that people in the position of authority have power, and power corrupts.
If there was a law stating that every complaint of abuse of authority will be thoroughly investigated by an independent body and, if found to be justified, the culprits shall be sodomized with jackhammers, then I will have no problem with showing IDs or trusting the authorities, because I will know that people with power would not even dream of abusing it.
However, as things stand now, policemen (and other people in a position of authority) can get away with crimes that a normal person would rot in jail for. Often they get "reprimanded" or are subject to "administrative measures" or, at worst, greatly reduced sentences because, after all, they are policemen...
WTF?
If you are given means to limit the rights and freedoms of other people (and often take their lives), you should be bloody made accountable! Any crime that also involved abuse of authority (whether as a parent, police officer, elected official, etc.) should be treated as crime against society and automatically warrant twice the maximum penalty set by law. Penalties for corruption should hurt so much as to make it not worth the risk.
Secret laws, laws that criminalize a large portion of the population, selective enforcement, etc. invariably lead to corruption and must be eliminated.
> mod parent up insightful
Huh?
Why in the world would anyone consider a statement of facts "insightful"?
What insight exactly was present?
Seriously, I believe that a prospective moderator should be made to correctly correctly identify possible moderation options before they can actually moderate submissions.
At least read the relevant FAQ entry before moderating!
On the other hand, almost every moron can vote (by virtue of their birthplace) so I guess that, in the grand scheme of things, SlashDot moderation does not really matter that much.
> But what drive's Paypal's fees (besides the usual bookkeeping/admin costs), are credit card fees.
> Remember that every time a vendor accepts a credit card payment, the VENDOR, not the customer,
> must pay the credit card company a fee, which generally ranges from 2-5% of the transaction.
> So Paypal is acting as the vendor so that each seller doesn't have to start up his own merchant CC account.
> You'll find that Paypal's fees aren't that much higher than the credit card fees alone.
> But that is also why Paypal started to try to encourage buyers to use their bank accounts to fund transactions,
> to avoid having to pay the CC fees.
According to PayPal, "PayPal charges Premier and Business accounts to receive payments. Personal accounts are free, but may not receive credit card payments."
Let's say you want to sell something for $300 on PayPal.
If you have a "Personal Account", you cannot accept money from accounts funded by Credit Cards at all -- so no CC fees for PayPal.
Otherwise, if you have a "Premier/Business Account", you pay $9 (comes to 3%) as fees, which will either cover the vendor CC fees, if the buyer's account is funded by a credit card or will go straight to PayPal's coffers if the buyer's money came from another source.
Either way, PayPal wins.
Oh, and if you got paid in international currency, that's another 2.5% for PayPal. Sweet.
PayPal wants you to use a bank account because that way they can access your money. That's right, in case of a "dispute", they can just withdraw any amount that wish from your account and hold it for half a year. Double sweet.
Which reminds me:
If I want to use both the email client and the browser, would I be better off installing FireFox+ThunderBird or the full Mozilla suite?
Can the suite use the FF/TB plugins?
> John Dvorak has been in the computer industry about as long as Univac
and nowadays he's about just as useful.
> A few books of programming that I've used, they all use the infamous i
> counter name in their for loops and then, they come up and say that you have
> to give variable names that make sense, and then you see again the for int i...
Using "i" for an index variable is perfectly sensible and natural for anybody with a math background (and don't forget that algorithms are math).
> I have been coding in C for a while (10 yrs or so) and tend to use short code snippets.
> As a simple example, take 'if (!ptr)' instead of 'if (ptr==NULL)'.
> The reason someone might use the former code snippet is because they believe it would result
> in smaller machine code if the compiler does not do optimizations or is not smart enough
> to optimize the particular code snippet.
No programmer believes that.
In C, NULL is #define-ed to 0 and the "!" operator also compares against zero so every compiler should generate exactly the same code for both.
> IMHO the latter code snippet is clearer than the former, and I would use it in my code
Actually I prefer to write (and read) the former and I do find it clearer, mostly because it is idiomatic in C et al.
Another good reason is that the former works better in C++ because it enables you to substitute "smart" objects for plain pointers and use them in a more natureal way (especially in templates).
(Aside: most platforms that have C compilers also have deccent C++ compilers)
> if I know for sure that the compiler will optimize it and produce machine code equivalent to the former code snippet.
See above. There is nothing to optimize.
> People are pretty stupid, emotional and gullible and we have purchased a
> lot of the media outlets to which people are exposed, so we have a good
> chance of achieving this objective.
>
> It's all very logical and makes good business sense. Why shouldn't the free
> market system be applied to the public's emotions? It's been done for centuries.
True, that's one of the problems with representative democracies.
Another one is the assumption that a person best equipped to win a popularity contest is the most suitable choice to run a country.
>> Serirously- this isn't paperclips these people are selling ITS YOUR
>> PERSONAL DATA. They need to be closed, and whoever responsible needs to go
>> to jail- and everyone involved in covering up the crime deserves to live in
>> poverty for the rest of their fucking lives.
>
> Nice thought, but Dubya would pardon them.
Then he also deserves the same fate.
The president of a democratic country is not an overlord. He is chosen by the people to administer the execution of of the people's will. Once he forgets that, he needs to be slapped down. Hard.
> Irregardless of the various culprits [...]
Irregardless?
> Anyway, as I noted in the earlier thread on this topic, I think we need to
> establish the principle that *YOU* own the personal data about *YOU*, and no
> one can use it or sell it without *YOUR* permission. This is actually a
> logical implication of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. However, to give it
> teeth, I think we also need to appeal to "Possession is nine points of the
> law", and *YOU* should be able to store your own data on *YOUR* own computer.
> Anyone wants to see it, they ask for your permission (or prove they deserve a
> search warrant).
Hmmm...
You said: "... ChoicePoint helped disenfranchise thousands of primarily Democratic voters".
I am sorry but, according to your suggestion, this information does not belong to you so you cannot use it without a search warrant.
Yes, this remark was facetious but there is a line to be drawn between a right to privacy and the freedom of speech (or information) and it is not so simple to decide where to draw it.
> How can you trademark a generic english word like "game" and try to enforce it?
Apple.
If I want to use both Firefox and Thunderbird, is there a reason not to use the full Mozilla suite?
Will all the FF/TB plugins run on Mozilla?
Can Mozilla's UI be made more like FF instead of its Netscape-ish look?
Thanks.
> Do the demographics. You'll find that the vast majority of those deaths
> are NOT in the "Bible Belt where every motherfucker owns at least one gun".
Maybe it is because, according to the grandfather post's use of the vernacular, those that "own at least one gun" have other things on their minds?
> Opera had tabs before Firefox did. Also mouse gestures.
Gestures were a feature of IE long before Firefox and Opera.
Screams and curses too.
By the way,
whoever uses the term "stealing" to mean "incorporating a feature previously found in another product" needs a clue by four.
With regard to a previous article:
This and other similar projects give us an interesting opportunity to compare open-source vs. closed (originally) code quality.
> As an aside: gawd, I hate their use of "patriot" that way, does anybody ... also known as The Samuel Johnson act.
> know the etymology of the word "patriot" with respect to this legislation?
> Whose idea was it to use "patriot" and why? It seems like the worst/most
> transparent type of label possible for such a group of laws that seek to
> strip away personal freedoms and rights to privacy.
> Convince 10 other people to do something about it.
>
> But what if they don't both know binary?
As you know, there are 10 kinds of people.
Those that know binary and those that don't.
My comment here.